S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The plaintiff in this suit, seeks a decree for declaration that the preliminary decree issued by this court, in CS (OS) 2211 of 2003, (“the partition suit”) dated 16.11.2005, is null and void, and that it was obtained by misrepresenting and playing a fraud. A decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from seeking to dispossess the plaintiff, from interfering with his possession of the suit property, as well as Shop Nos. 121, 122 and 136, Shankar Road Market, New Rajinder Nagar, (hereafter “the shops”) is sought.

2. The suit alleges that the plaintiff purchased the three shops from the first defendant, for Rs. 1 crore. It is contended that a bakery was run under the style “New Grand Bakery” from the shops, and the plaintiff purchased the entire property along with the assets of the bakery. It is stated that a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid as advance, for which a receipt was executed by the said defendant, who is the wife of one late Bansi Lal. It is stated that though the receipt does not bear a date, the transaction took place on 10.12.2003. It is alleged that another amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was paid on 01.08.2004; the defendant was dilly-dallying the execution of the documents. The plaintiff says that a sum of Rs. 45,000/-was given through his brother-in-law to the first defendant’s attorney, Mr. Vijay Kapoor, and deposited with the treasury, for purchase of non-judicial stamp paper. According to the suit, the plaintiff was handed over possession of the properties; Shop No. 121 was owned by the defendants, whereas in the other shops, they were lessees. The plaintiff further submits that a partnership deed was executed between him and the first defendant, and that the firm is registered with the Registrar of Firms, Government of NCT of Delhi. It is stated that the plaintiff was thus in possession of the premises, ever since 2003, when on 16.11.2005, this Court passed an order in the partition suit.

3. The plaintiff has, in the suit, reproduced the order of court dated 16.11.2005. The Court noticed that the parties were embroiled in other litigation, and essentially the dispute pertained to the properties and assets of late Kanshi Ram Thakur (father of Bansi Lal, who was the defendant’s husband). The first defendant in the partition suit was the widow of Kanshi Ram Thakur; the second defendant was the son, and the other two defendants, his daughters. The Court determined that the share of Bansi Lal’s branch was 20% in the suit properties – the decree clearly mentioned them; they correspond to the properties that are subject matter of the suit. The plaintiff has described the parties to the suit, and also mentioned that an ad interim injunction restraining disposal of the property was issued by the Court, on 26December, 2003. He however, alleges that this order was not within his knowledge. The suit also refers to an order of 25.02.2004, in a contempt petition, where the plaintiff was impleaded as an alleged contemnor. In the contempt proceeding, it was alleged that the present plaintiff had sought to disturb the possession and existing status quo.

4. It is submitted that the plaintiff became aware of the alleged baseless and frivolous statements made by the parties before the Court, in the partition suit, which led to the decree dated 16.11.2005, that none of them would create any third party interest. He submits that the parties played a fraud on this Court, while making the statement, since the property had already been transferred to him. On this premise, it is contended that the decree dated 16.11.2005 cannot stand, and has to be set aside as illegal and void.

5. The plaintiff lastly mentions that he had filed an application, IA 10275/2008 to be made a party in the partition suit, as the decree issued there and the further proceedings were prejudicing him. It is submitted that another application for recalling the order and decree dated 16.11.2005, was also moved before Court